A Serving U.S. Officer: Iraq Is Another Vietnam

Posted on Apr 27, 2007

Lt. Col. Paul Yingling has hit out with a withering critique of the Iraq war in the Armed Forces Journal, taking aim at American military leaders for being woefully unprepared—and hence not preparing troops—for the challenges the war has posed. What’s more, Yingling thinks it’s bound to end in defeat for the U.S.

BBC:

Lt Col Yingling, who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment and has served two tours in Iraq, said the military leadership had entirely failed to grasp what would be needed for success in Iraq.

“For reasons that are not yet clear, America’s general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq’s government and security forces, and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of the security conditions in Iraq,” he wrote.

The generals had gone into Iraq in 2003 with too few soldiers and no coherent plan for post-war stabilisation, having spent a decade “preparing to fight the wrong war”, he said.

“The intellectual and moral failures common to America’s general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship.”

Why we havent had a civil coup detat led by people like this officer is beyond me!

“Great question, which allows me to mount my soapbox once again and say Its the system, NOT the current personalities.”

It’s the exact opposite. But we already know that you reject the rule of law—the system—in favor of lawlessness.

“If I succeed in overthrowing my government (average age in the US 42) do I lose my accumlike social security?”

“Well regulated” refers to Art. I., Sec. 8., Cl. 16., Congress shall have the Power . . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and discipling the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.”

There is only one legal militia, and it is “always to be in perfect subordination to the Civil Power” (Sam Adams, et al.). And the branch of that Civil Power which makes the laws is Congress. “Well regulated” means UNDER LAW as prescribed by CONGRESS.

If you’ll be claiming to be about “defending the Constitution,” then you should read it at least once. One doesn’t defend it by rejecting it, or by the nonsensical “divine right” fantasy that the Constitution authorizes the destruction of the Constitution.

And read your state constitution, wherein you’ll learn that the commander-in-chief of the militia is the state’s governor. Which obviously means that the purpose of the militia is not to “defend against” the gov’t, but instead as the Constitution stipulates: Art I. Sec. 8., Cl. 15. Congress shall have the power . . . . To provide [by legislation] for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.”

Only a looney, suicidal, or treasonous governor would use the militia to “defend against” the gov’t of which he is at the same time the head.

Why we havent had a civil coup detat led by people like this officer is beyond me!”

Becuase the military swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And the Constitution requires that the military always be under the civil authority. The intent is to prevent unelected military coups.

“The grounds for doing so are so patently obvious if the military had any reason to restore some semblance of dignity for itself.”

The responsiblity be3longs to We the people—not a Big Daddy military riding in on a white horse.

“Id even allow Colin Powell to participate to restore his tarnished image.”

1. Image is superficial; it signifes empt of substance.

2. Powell knowingly through his troops away on an illegal invasion he knew could not win. Because he’s a Republican before he’s an American.

One cannot talk about his character because he has none: Powell was the first to “investigate”—and cover up—the My Lai massacres. Career was more important than the mass murder of civilians by US troops.

Powell is no hero. In fact, his lies to the UN and world ultimately sold Bushit, et al.‘s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Yinling keeps acusing some vague un-named generals but sounds ,more and more, like one of them. As he tries to explain their ignorance and stupidities, he promptly displays his own.
Nowhere does he mention the main advantage of the insurgents over the U.S. Army, which is the fighting spirit of the rag-tag militia against the agressor of their country. Our lt.colonel didn’t learn himself the main Vietnam lesson: a guerrilla is a revolutionary army which will eventually prevail against any tactics and strategy of the occupier. Theirs is always the higher moral ground which is built on inevitable brutalities of the occupier.
Yinling is not concerned with this war being unlawful and immoral, he wants to improve it, instead.
It wouldn’t be surprising if Hillary starts quoting him.
He is exactly her type of “general”.

Ah, if any of you think Yingling published without clearance of his superiors should do a little journalistic digging to see *who* he has been publishing coauthored works with over the past year, and how many times Yingling has been quoted on record in newspaper articles criticising the non-Petraeus military crowd inside the Beltway. He’s no rebel.

Why we haven’t had a “civil” coup d’etat led by people like this officer is beyond me! The grounds for doing so are so patently obvious if the military had any reason to restore some semblance of dignity for itself. I’d even allow Colin Powell to participate to restore his tarnished image.

Did not the President announce “Mission acomplished”? We should take him at his word, show him a clip of the video as a reminder, since he is a man of his word, bring the troops home. It would be nice if he was right about something before he leaves office in handcuffs or a straghtjacket.

For reasons that are not yet clear, Americas general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraqs government and security forces, and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of the security conditions in Iraq,

It’s very simple 99.99 percent of the Officers in the military put their careers ahead of everything else. Gotta get that next promotion.

That’s why the military can’t be put in charge of determining why, where, or how we fight a war.